Abstract
The adoption of the ChatGPT o1 model represents a significant advancement in the management of clinical cases due to the introduction of a new structured reasoning capability, the “chain-of-thought reasoning” (CoT). In this study, 350 general medicine clinical cases were tested using ChatGPT o1 and ChatGPT o1 mini, and their performance was compared with ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT 4o mini to evaluate diagnostic accuracy. The results showed that ChatGPT o1 achieved a correct answer rate of 93.4%, outperforming both ChatGPT 4o (82.2%) and the mini versions (ChatGPT o1 mini: 70.2% and ChatGPT 4o mini: 66.2%). The CoT technique enabled the model to provide more coherent and transparent responses, reducing the occurrence of so-called “hallucinations.” This study highlights how the ChatGPT o1 model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, although its use requires supervision to ensure patient safety, especially in critical settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We have reviewed the p-values in Table 1.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
